As odd as it may seem, the aim of war is to sufficiently reduce an enemy's capacity to resist you asserting your will/policies over them and not to kill/maim/mutilate the enemy's soldiers. Certain types of ammunition in the latter half of the 19th century (the Minie Ball comes to mind) were causing so much horrific damage that their continued use came to be thought inhumane. As you can see in the provided link, an provision in an international convention outlawed their use for military conflict between signatory nations. So no matter how much better a hollow-point, wad-cutter, etc may be at knocking a hole in a man and turning his innards into ground chuck, such outcome has been deemed contrary to to the gentlemanly conduct of warfare.

I suppose part of the reasoning has to do with the fact that whether a nation win or lose a war there are typically a large number of surviving veterans who have to go on living with the aftereffects and it would be nice if maiming can be kept to a minimum. After all, the offending party in a war is the other nation....not the other soldier, who is merely an instrumentality of conflict. In a law enforcement situation the offending party is the s.o.b. getting shot and the more immediate concern is limiting his continued capacity to endanger the non-offending public around him.

While I agree, the soldier shouldn't be injured more than necessary, it's tough to do, when centermass is the area targetted and in urban warfare, 2 taps to the upper chest and 1 to the forehead are the procedure taught. Not too many people get up from a third eye shot, ball ammo or otherwise. For that matter a .22 to the base of teh skull will put someone down, and scramble their brains too.

You're very welcome. It's probably important to remember the historical context of the era in which the agreement was concluded. Remember that in the gentlemanly Napoleonic era the opposing sides would actually parole officers back to their own countries on their promise to engage no further in the conflict. And also remember the horrific damage that projectiles such as the Minie ball had wrought in the War of Northern Aggression. I believe there was also some similar thing going on with projectiles in use during the Spanish-American war, which was still a very fresh memory at the time.

Mike Cash wrote:You're very welcome. It's probably important to remember the historical context of the era in which the agreement was concluded. Remember that in the gentlemanly Napoleonic era the opposing sides would actually parole officers back to their own countries on their promise to engage no further in the conflict. And also remember the horrific damage that projectiles such as the Minie ball had wrought in the War of Northern Aggression. I believe there was also some similar thing going on with projectiles in use during the Spanish-American war, which was still a very fresh memory at the time.

I also remember when it was considered barbaric and immoral to shoot an officer as well. Of course the Patriots and minutmen of the new found colonies, decided to start shooting the lead officer to put the opposing troops into disarray.. (I wonder if this is the first notice of modern sniping?....)

Mike Cash wrote:You're very welcome. It's probably important to remember the historical context of the era in which the agreement was concluded. Remember that in the gentlemanly Napoleonic era the opposing sides would actually parole officers back to their own countries on their promise to engage no further in the conflict. And also remember the horrific damage that projectiles such as the Minie ball had wrought in the War of Northern Aggression. I believe there was also some similar thing going on with projectiles in use during the Spanish-American war, which was still a very fresh memory at the time.

I also remember when it was considered barbaric and immoral to shoot an officer as well. Of course the Patriots and minutmen of the new found colonies, decided to start shooting the lead officer to put the opposing troops into disarray.. (I wonder if this is the first notice of modern sniping?....)

I think modern sniping is as old as the crossbow, it just fell out of favor during the middle ages. Not out of a sense of chivalry but because Knights and other officers were almost always noble born and their relatively rich families were usually willing to pay ransom. A lot of Historians falsely conclude that because so few armored knights died in battle this meant arrows could not penetrate the armor, in spite of documented evidence to the contrary, but the real reason so few knights died was because most soldiers were bending over backwards to not kill them. Separate an armored knight from his friends and dogpile him, strip him of his armor and ransom him back to his family. It was like winning the lottery, an entire company could retire for life off one knight. Kill that knight and you would get a lot of people angry at you, maybe enough to slit your throat in your sleep.

Romans were very practical about war so I don't see them not sniping if they the idea occurred to them. Their goal was to win not to be gentlemanly about war. Likewise, the Crossbow was also used in China about the same time and would probably have been used for sniping if the opportunity presented itself.

two_heads_talking wrote: (I wonder if this is the first notice of modern sniping?....)

I think modern sniping is as old as the crossbow, it just fell out of favor during the middle ages. Not out of a sense of chivalry but because Knights and other officers were almost always noble born and their relatively rich families were usually willing to pay ransom. A lot of Historians falsely conclude that because so few armored knights died in battle this meant arrows could not penetrate the armor, in spite of documented evidence to the contrary, but the real reason so few knights died was because most soldiers were bending over backwards to not kill them. Separate an armored knight from his friends and dogpile him, strip him of his armor and ransom him back to his family. It was like winning the lottery, an entire company could retire for life off one knight. Kill that knight and you would get a lot of people angry at you, maybe enough to slit your throat in your sleep.

Romans were very practical about war so I don't see them not sniping if they the idea occurred to them. Their goal was to win not to be gentlemanly about war. Likewise, the Crossbow was also used in China about the same time and would probably have been used for sniping if the opportunity presented itself.

I was actually referring to rifles when I said modern. I should have been a bit more clear about that. Sniping as you refer to can be traced quite a ways back..

BetterSense wrote:Look, I don't consider pocket knives weapons. I'm simply a knife enthusiast. I like them, I get good use out of them, I carry them everywhere, and it would be an adjustment to go knife-free. I didn't intend this to become a political thread.[...]As always, many thanks to Yudan and others. Your insight is greatly appreciated.[...]I still find it ironic that my favorite knives are made in Seki Japan, yet if I went there I would have to leave them at home.

Sorry to de-rail back to the main topic. About the irony part, Japan exports a ton and I think most of it they would never buy themselves. They are also really good at making blades thanks to their artisan system. But they are also really good at making lots of things that require precision crafting.

I brought my leatherman with me without thinking it would be confiscated. It wasn't confiscated. I also bought a swiss army pocket knife at a camping store down the street and have that in my man-purse. I also always take my leatherman with me when we go camping. I've seen leatherman-ish devices for sale here. I think for the outdoorsy community it's not much of an issue. If you live in Tokyo, I can see where it would be less common. But we live in Tohoku up north and go either camping or skiing almost every weekend; either way we're on a mountain. I think your best bet would be to leave your knives at home and buy one here in the town you live in. That way you can conform to the local acceptable practice and easily point out to any cops where you bought it. Context is important not only for you but your employer or wife's employer. If something should happen to you, they are held responsible by the culture almost as much as you are. (i.e. getting pulled over for speeding and having to apologize to everybody at work for the hassle you gave them. You can get deported here for speeding depending on your employer )